As you said, would associate this term with the semantic approach of Jacques Derrida, which, as I understand it, approximates the meaning of words in context not simply in terms of "signifiant'' and 'signifié', but in a contrasted fashion (a bit like the way a Roget's Thesaurus is organised, among other things), based on the fact that what the signifié denotes is achieved not just directly by a reference to what it 'may' refer to, but indirectly as well by what, on the face of it, it does not refer to (and this, not just on the mental word map of the author, but on that of the reader as well, which may not necessarily match 100%, given the different background / views of each on the subject dealt with.)
So , would view this term as referring to the extent to which the semantic spread a particular (most probably abstract) term can be determined from its origin(s) and usage(s) in different contexts over time, in order to delimit its range and tighten its probably intended semantic focus, given the context considered.

It is clear that Derrida put the finger right on the importance and difficulty of achieving successful mutual understanding across social groups with different formations, interests and concerns.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day32 mins (2017-06-04 12:51:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Nick. Had week-end commitments to attend to but will have a go at the new phrasing challenge you mention and get back with some suggestion, if you leave me the time to do so.
But thanks for your first response. Just one follow-up remark for now:
Translated into French this specialist term could pass, if the paper has been meant for a readership of academic intellectuals. But into English, we must try to localise it by expanding this single pretty condensed Noun into a rhetorical interrogative sentence or clause, perhaps, that everybody can understand, Of course if the rest of the paper is in that dry and abstract vein, that would break up the consistency of the style and, to avoid that, induce you to 'localise' the expression of the whole paper to the British way of doing it. Rephrasing the literal translation in explanatory footnotes could be another way of making that paper more digestible; but isn't the real function of the translator to achieve a successful communication to the target of the source's intended contents?
Short of sufficient context info, the literal translation I suggested of the Japanese term you singled out (itself is a literal translation of the original French term, let's face it). To use it ‘as such’ would be a double cope-out, passing on the buck for the reader(s) to interpret in whatever way he/they wish. Is that the purpose of the paper?
It’s interesting! for we have here a concrete example of a communication that requires ‘deconstructing’ (breaking down) to weigh the influence of the various human factors (t.b.d) that may have contributed to the production of this paper, and to what effect so far as the chosen wording of that communication. But enough said for now. Back to work.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day4 hrs (2017-06-04 16:20:15 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Nope again! My rambling on the suitability of the term ‘deconstructability’ which applied to the meaning of communications is not relevant to your context, since it applies to Art, as you since told us.

The phrase “deconstructed art work” becomes perfectly clear once one takes a look at some of the works (paintings, ceramics, installations) produced in that creative vein of inspiration.
Some of these viewed online are not just unexpected collages or associations of subjects / ideas; they can actually blow away to smithereens not just our established notions of congruence, (received or acquired through living) (https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/victorian-china ) )but even the normalcy of our perceptions (https://www.trendhunter.com/trends/melted-ceramic-art .
This is a great fun game, with infinite possibilities, unsettling us, mixing the attributes of any object in combinations or positions not seen for nearly a century.
Yet we can see why this paper chooses to examine whether this more recent form of Art does/will contribute to the cultural enrichment of the established society, or undermine the order of its structures and its authority [権力]`. Why so? Because, apart from its gleeful play with images and symbols, when these ‘transmuted presentations’ change from amusingly gratuitous to ‘conceptual’ , then they can become a significant channel to sling officialdom with subversive or polemic messages (http://www.imgrum.org/media/1273538935989446228_2918744584). In a manner not at all acerbic but insidiously dangerous from the Establishment’s view point, the zest of this Art movement for creative chaos to stimulate new forms of expression (http://neosurrealism.artdigitaldesign.com/modern-artists/?ar... ) is what caused the German fascist regime to reject any unconventional form of art (Painting: (Cubism) and Music (Shostakovich)) as “decadent” and a potential corruption of the people’s mind.